Oooooooh. So how come these clubs get away with charging stage fees and requiring specific tipouts???
Printable View
Oooooooh. So how come these clubs get away with charging stage fees and requiring specific tipouts???
America is corrupt beyound your wildest imaginations.
Because the idea is you are an act.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitkat824
When an act comes to a stadium, do they own the stadium? Or does the promoter rent the stadium to put the act on.
Coming from the professional "legit" theatre biz, I can say they are using some parallels to other entertainment business customs.
Just as a ballet group comes up to form a "company" - so is a dancer her own "company."
The ballet group decides to go out on tour - so they rent a stage to perform on. So does the dancer rent a stage to perform on.
Sometimes, like with music groups - you rent the sound and lighting from a sound and lighting company. In the case of exotic dancers - these items come with the stage.
So like a play or music group or dancer group, you're stage fees are LIKE a rental agreement for:
-- Sound Amplification
-- Lighting
-- Stage Construction
-- Dressing Room
-- Security
-- Building/Parking lot for patrons
-- Meeting Building Code Requirements
-- Meeting "other" code requirements (read that as city red tape for adult ent.)
Stage fees are probably the most legit thing in the business. I have seen stage rentals at $3,000 per night for 700 people (about 4 bucks per person) for "legitimate" theater acts. In a high volume (400 or more people in per night) club $300 bucks doesn't seem so bad eh?
It is required tipping of bouncers, DJ, house mom, etc. that have no legitimacy.
Well one logical extension of your argument is that an officeworker should pay to use their desk and chair.
With "stage fees", it's like clubs get to have their cake and eat it too.
It would seem so, but it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitkat824
A logical extension would be that the bouncer has to pay to work there. But the bouncer is not the act and is an employee of the stage company (aka the strip club.)
No stage fee means the dancer is an employee (with all the pluses and minuses of that.) An employee would mean their earnings are not based on "ticket sales" but upon what the manager deems an offered amount.
A problem is, the club tends to treat dancers as employees when really they are suppose to be third parties.
The reality of it is, the club is working for YOU because YOU paid the club for thier amenities via your stage fee. This has been forgotten in many ways and is a more fair manner of filing grievances.
Hm, well, the law states differently.
I think the way you've framed it is a clear illustration of how clubs unfairly take advantage of people in a vulnerable profession.
Stage fees are unfair and not in accordance with IRS codes and therefore should be eliminated.
This is a pro-stage fee group.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitkat824
They are taking advantage of the people who don't realize the relationship the club is entering into with stage fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitkat824
If one wants to get in their faces, one needs to ask "what am I buying with this stage fee?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitkat824
Then you would be an employee - exactly what those states are hoping to make dancers so 1) they won't want to dance and 2) they can easier track taxes owed to them.
How can you justify earning money as a seperate legal entity (aka not an employee) from the club without an agreement and stage fee?
If you are a seperate legal entity from the club, you need to pay them to use their property and services.
If you are not paying them to use that property and services, then you are not a seperate legal entity - you are an employee.
The afore mentioned agreement regarding stage rental would make the dancer legally a seperate entity, especially with a corporate to corporate agreement (see Dollar Den) from the club according to Federal IRS rules.
To prove it, you will need to keep business books under sole proprieter or corporation GAP principles (not that hard really) and pay quarterly taxes, etc. like a business does.
You would need to be an employee of that corporation. (Though some try to say they are a stock holder and pay themselves by dividends!)
Otherwise, it is perfectly OK to be an employee - where you don't pay a stage fee, but you do get paid a commission based on dances. This means 1) You have to be there at the times appointed like an employee 2) They have to have someone hovering over you counting dances for proper accounting 3) A lot of other bad mojo of working as an employee.
Problem is that most clubs treat dancers as an employee rather than a separate legal entity.
This is the link for the International Union Of Sex Workers (GMB)
<a href="http://www.iusw.org/</a>
There are various advocacy groups. Here are some links:
Sex Workers Outreach Project: www.swop-usa.org
Erotic Service Providers Union: www. espu-ca.org
Desiree Alliance: www.desireealliance.org
Bay Area Sex Worker Advocacy Network: www.bayswan.org
Quote:
Otherwise, it is perfectly OK to be an employee - where you don't pay a stage fee, but you do get paid a commission based on dances. This means 1) You have to be there at the times appointed like an employee 2) They have to have someone hovering over you counting dances for proper accounting 3) A lot of other bad mojo of working as an employee.
From a technical standpoint, when a dancer agrees to work as an employee she gives up any rights to her work product. Legally this means that the club owns her lap dances, that the club is entitled to 100% of the money charged to customers for lap dances, and that the dancer is only entitled to an hourly paycheck no matter how many lap dances she is asked / required to perform. Typically clubowners do pay 'sales commissions' on lap dances sold by individual employee dancers i.e. 50% of the customer charge, but they are not required to do so by law.
The flip side of employee dancer status is that the 'employer' is required to provide all necessary 'tools' for her to perform her job, which technically makes the charging of stage fees and tipouts illegal.
The dark side of employee dancer status is that every single dollar the employee dancer receives is supposed to be run through the club's payroll system ... with automatic reporting to the IRS and with automatic withholding of income and other taxes. In other words, by the letter of the law it is illegal for an employee dancer to directly take money from customers (including tips) and pocket it - instead all money (including tips) should be legally turned over to the club, with the dancer eventually receiving some portion of the turned over money in her paycheck after taxes are withheld.
Also, employee dancers are covered by labor law to some degree at least. This tends to give preference to dancers with the longest work history (seniority) at particular clubs in terms of shift choice, in terms of firings / cutbacks etc. There is also ample labor law precedent for the institution of 'tip sharing', where all dancer tips received during the week are thrown into a pool, and at the end of the week that tip money is equally divided among the employee dancers paychecks.
So if your intention is to wind up with a club full of older, out of shape dancers with very little energy or incentive to hustle, then by all means go the employee route !
I'm normally a big believer in unionising as a means of partially redressing the inherent employee/employer power imbalance, but believe a stripper union would be counter-productive. There's an Australian one (I think in NSW) which got a court declaration that toy shows should be paid at $2000/hour and regular shows at I think $1000/hour approximately. I'd have no objections to being paid that much, the trouble is that neither employers nor customers share my lack of objection. Hence that kind of declaration has the potential to kill the industry. Also, strippers, not being employees and also being highly paid, tend not to need the kind of protection that, say, retail workers do. There are also problems involved in actually organising contractors into a union.
In the final analysis, dancers being able to operate as free agent 'independent contractors' provides an incentive for the 'best' dancers ... as it allows them to retain the fruits of their own labors, as it allows them to pursue the most promising markets / opportunities etc. On the other hand, employee dancers protected by employee labor laws plus union rules would provide an incentive for the 'worst' dancers ... as it would allow them to benefit on the basis of seniority despite customer preferences (can you imagine a club on friday / saturday night with no new / young dancers working), as it would allow them to benefit from the earnings potential of other dancers (hot young dancer earns $100 in tips, marginal older dancer earns $20 in tips, but both get paid $60 in shared tips) etc.Quote:
'm normally a big believer in unionising as a means of partially redressing the inherent employee/employer power imbalance, but believe a stripper union would be counter-productive.
Just my two cents here...
Every time you organize something you lose a little autonomy. Meaning, yes, maybe employee protections MIGHT be better for dancers but that would mean giving up something else - like power to choose when we work and the ability to so freely go from one club to another, from one state to another. While I am not in favor of high house fees, I have the right to not work at clubs that charge them with very little impact on my career. Over the years I have managed to develop long standing relationships with clubs in different cities and am therefore never out of work. If I had to behave like an employee this would be nearly impossible.
In short, I'd much rather pay house fees and have the freedoms I have now than be an employee and lose my autonomy.
And, I agree with everything Melonie has said thus far in this thread.